San Diego business lawyer

Petitioner attorney sought review in the California court of the recommendation of disbarment by respondent State Bar of California (state bar) for unprofessional conduct in the management of his client's trust fund.

The attorney was disbarred for mismanagement of a client's trust fund account. The attorney did not dispute the material facts, but challenged the severity of the punishment recommended by the board of governors for the state bar. The court found that the attorney was guilty of an unjustified omission to safeguard his client's funds. The San Diego business lawyer found that the attorney made an untrue statement in a separate proceeding regarding whether the trust fund account went below the sum of the funds held in trust for his client. The court held that the statement constituted professional misconduct under the California State Bar Act § 6068(d). The court found, however, that the discipline of disbarment was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense the attorney committed, and ordered that the attorney be suspended from the practice of law in California for two years.

The court affirmed the recommendation of the state bar, but ordered that the attorney be suspended from the practice of the law California for the period of two years.

Defendant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which convicted him of aggravated kidnapping in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 209(a), and second-degree felony murder.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping under Cal. Penal Code § 209(a) and first-degree felony murder. He moved for a new trial on the ground that the jury had been instructed it could find him guilty of first-degree murder committed during a kidnap for ransom, which was not included in the first-degree felony murder statute in effect when the crime was committed. The trial court agreed that the instruction was erroneous but denied the motion for new trial and reduced the first-degree murder conviction to second-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The court affirmed and held that kidnapping for ransom involved a substantial risk of death to the victim and therefore supported a conviction of second-degree felony murder. The court held that because defendant's conduct as a participant in the aggravated kidnapping and the second-degree murder were indistinguishable, he could not be punished for both crimes under Cal. Penal Code § 654. The court modified defendant's sentence by staying the sentence for second-degree murder until the completion of his sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

The court affirmed defendant's convictions for aggravated kidnapping and second-degree felony murder and held that because kidnapping posed a substantial risk of death to the victim, it supported a conviction for second-degree felony murder. The court modified defendant's sentence to stay his sentence for second-degree murder until the completion of his sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Report this Page

Created on Mar 29th 2021 21:54. Viewed 176 times.

Share on APSense

Comments